# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_June 23 1998_S12
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

When action is started while a bylaw is in effect, must that action terminate if/when that bylaw is
rescinded in order to operate in harmony with the Bylaws?
The question was illustrated by the following case:
Under Bylaw 6.91, b, a congregation in 1996 requested the layman serving it in Word and Sacrament
ministry be considered for ordination. The Colloquy Committee responded that the individual had
completed only 7 years of the required 10. The information would be kept on file, and the congregation
should send in another request letter in three years. In January of 1999 the congregation could submit
this second letter. However, the convention would rescind Bylaw 6.91, b, if the recommendations of
late memorial L5-64 were adopted.
It concluded with the question of whether the request of the congregation could still be considered since the
authorizing bylaw had been rescinded.

In its reply the Commission stated:
This is in response to your questions recently addressed to the Commission on Constitutional Matters
regarding eligibility for enrollment in the pastoral colloquy program of the Synod.
The Bylaws themselves (15.01) are silent as to whether amendments are retroactive or whether
commitments made or courses of action embarked upon in reliance on a bylaw would require
application of the bylaw even after its amendment or repeal. In the secular realm, amendments to
statues, codes, and rules are generally prospective in operation. Unless the enacting legislation provides
otherwise, eligibility requirements for professional licensure is determined by the rules in effect at the
time certification is sought. There is no guarantee that the eligibility requirements in effect when an
applicant begins preparation for a certain professional designation will not change before the applicant
becomes eligible. In the example given, therefore, it is possible that a bylaw amendment could work a
hardship on the applicant for whom the requirements would, in effect, change in mid stream.
The Commission observes that through careful draftsmanship it would be possible to prevent such a
hardship by a number of means, such as expressly providing that an amendment take effect at sometime
in the future, providing a grandfather provision for those who have begun preparation prior to the bylaw
amendment, or making specific provision for a named individual to be treated differently than provided
in the bylaw generally.
184. Next Meeting: The Commission determined to hold its meeting on Friday, July 10, at 8:00 p.m. in
order to review actions which had been taken and to consider final responses to some of the questions to
which preliminary answers had been given.
185. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned with prayer led by Dr. Schlecht.
Walter L. Rosin, Secretary

Minutes of the Commission on Constitutional Matters - August 24, 1998
186. Opening Prayer: The meeting was opened with prayer led by Dr. Schlecht at the request of Chairman
Tesch.